The question asks for the term that describes the situation where only a fraction of all committed crimes actually enter and proceed through the formal Criminal Justice Process. This involves multiple stages, from reporting the crime to investigation, arrest, charging, trial, and sentencing. At each step, the number of cases tends to decrease.
Let's examine the given options to understand their meaning in the context of criminology and the criminal justice system:
Desistance refers to the process where individuals stop engaging in criminal behavior. It focuses on the offender's transition away from crime, not on how crimes are processed by the system.
Just Deserts is a philosophy of punishment based on retribution. It argues that punishment should be proportionate to the severity of the crime committed. This concept deals with sentencing principles, not the filtering of cases through the justice system.
Attrition specifically describes the decrease in the number of cases as they move through the different stages of the criminal justice system. For example, many crimes are committed, but fewer are reported to the police, fewer result in arrest, fewer lead to charges, and even fewer result in conviction. This reduction at various stages is known as attrition.
Criminalization is the process by which behaviors or conditions become defined as criminal offenses. It's about expanding the scope of criminal law, rather than the reduction of cases within the existing process.
Based on the definitions, the term that accurately describes the phenomenon where only a proportion of committed crimes enter the Criminal Justice Process is Attrition. This reflects the significant 'drop-off' rate of cases as they move from commission to official processing.
| LIST-I | LIST-II | ||
| A. | Hedonism | II. | In Pursuit of Pleasure |
| B. | Hidden Crime | I. | Crimes not Recorded in Official Crime Data |
| C. | Incapacitation | IV. | Removal of Offenders' Ability to Commit Crime |
| D. | Incarceration | III. | The Process of Confining or Segregating Offending Populations |
Match the LIST-I with LIST-II
| List – I | Case Law | List – II | Concept |
|---|---|---|---|
| A | Ashby v/s White | II | Violation of absolute right |
| B | Rylands v/s Fletcher | III | Strict liability |
| C | Olga Tellis v/s Bombay Municipal Corp. | I | Poverty as an involuntary act under Tort |
| D | Allen v/s Flood | IV | Motive is irrelevant in Tort |
Choose the correct answer from the options given below:
| LIST-I (Theory) | LIST-II (Propounder) |
| A. Pigeon Hole Theory | I. William Prosser |
| B. Neighbour Rule | II. Wenfield |
| C. Tort is Social Engineering | III. Lord Atkin |
| D. Use of phrase 'Law of Tort' | IV. Salmond |